Corruption redefined

There are a couple of points I wanted to raise.

Our perception of corruption is coloured by mass media — the only corruption cases that recieve coverage involve sums of money and Hindi cinema hasn’t helped much either.

But I don’t think that’s what corruption is all about. I believe corruption is a completely natural phenomenon, which arises from a basic tussle between the state and the market.

The state has a responsibility to get involved in activities which are measured by the amount of social justice achieved. The corporation has a responsibility to be involved in activities that maximise profit.

The two are distinct, and usually at oppposites.

So any attempt by either to influence the other can be dangerous. While only the corporations attempt to influence the state are reffered to as corruption, I think it works both ways. Any attempt by either to influence the other is corrupting, simply because the motivations of the two are absolutely different.

When the state creates systems and processes that directly influence the corporation – like the license raj – corruption increases automatically.

Similiarly, when corporations create lobby groups directly aimed at influencing government policy – like the national rifle association in the us – it is corruption as well.

And since imagining a system where these two things don’t happen is at best utopian, corruption within the system is natural.

The next thing that needs to be addressed here is whether it is good or bad.

Putting aside political correctness and social conditioning for a moment, consider the following. The ability to influence people commands a tremendous amount of respect. Whether we influence them through words, or through the promise of a promotion, or by offering money, it doesn’t really matter. What is far more important is that the job gets done.

The oversimplified answer, IMHO, is that instead of wishing corruption away, we address it directly. By talking about the need to influence AND the desire to be influenced.

And then we can think about attacking these needs at a level where it makes sense — in our educational system, in our public knowledge system and untimately, in our systems.

Originally published on ] t h i n k [ (tootb.blogspot.com); recovered from the Wayback Machine.